Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Talk about sexism, here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is it bad for anyone to be emotional? The point is, certain things which are not necessarily rooted in our evolution, are ascribed to as female traits, and they tend to be regarded lower as the ones we (also arbitrarily) ascribe to males.

Fact: we are different.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

We should celebrate our similiarties and differences. The alternative is to pretend we are the same for the sake of appeasing feminists. I do not like the latter and the former sounds appealing. You fit somewhere in between the two, I believe.


Originally posted by Bardock42
What you are saying is what I am talking about, you are conditioned to dislike the traits on males but like them on females. Additionally a sort of submissiveness and subservience often belongs to the traits we "like" in females. Do you not see how that is sexist though, the traits we point on females, are ones that are designed to make them unable to succeed in our world without being taken care of by a "man".

That's probably because I do not find feminine males attractive because:

1. I'm not gay.

2. It's odd to pretend there is a mechanism other than my biology that makes me attracted to feminine traits.

3. I do not like submissive or subseviant females. I like intelligent, nice, and social females. (Odd that those are the same traits I like in male friends, huh?)

4. We still have unequal wages but where I work, I honestly believe the wages are in the opposite direction: females get paid more, on average, than males.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The girly girl thing is part of what I am talking about, do you think this stereotype is a natural difference between men and women, rather than the societal conditioning? Do you boys would still grow up to be the stereotypical manly man and girls the stereotypical girly girl if they were not told from the beginning that those are male traits while the others a female? If the girls weren't primed to want Barbies and the boys GI Joe?

Girly girl means this:

"soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc."

Stop with the feministic driven witch hunting. It's annoying.

And, yes, it's pretty hard to throw away your feminine or masculine traits. (Unless you have modern interventions.) That's...like...how we work n'stuff as animals.

And, I will not entertain your hypotheticals. You tell me the answers.







Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, possessively as treasure. As something to own, but undesirable to be.

No. As a state of being. As a powerful, educated, in-charge woman that is looked up to while being sexy.

Stop twisting my words.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed. I do believe that is a good thing, and that we have done a huge step for women's liberation, but that there are still smaller, but also important issues to solve.

K.




Originally posted by Bardock42
No, that's not the imagery that people are referring to when they say that. What they are referring to is a nagging, annoying woman. If you don't, I applaud that very much (it's like the South Park episode, where the children didn't see that the one being lynched was a black guy).

I have never known anyone to describe it as such in backwards, redneck, sexist, country like Oklahoma. They think it refers to a grumpy female dog, as well.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh please, you are taking the piss, aren't you? Not "some people", almost everyone thinks of a vagina when using that, that's why it has power, not because it conjures up imagery of kittens.

What does that MEAN?

I'm not "taking the piss." Now, I've heard and even used myself, "Taking the piss out of X", meaning, giving someone a difficult time. If that's what you mean, then, no, that's not what I'm doing in the slightest. However, I feel that that's what you've been doing the entire time to me.

And, Kittens? Please. You can do better at libel than that.

"I think some people confuse calling someone a p*ssy with that of the vag version: it does not compute. I don't even understand how that can compute in their heads."

That's because I'm soooo manly and logical that I can't think of things in illogical terms. See what I did there?


Originally posted by Bardock42
I wish that were as easy as that though. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, and perhaps it would be better for people not wanting a gap in gender roles and not wanting sexism to have power, to rather not use them at all, censor themselves, and ask people to do the same (or at least think about what they say)

We need genetic homogeneity before your pipe-dreams can be realized. No genders. No race. No variance in appearances. We are all the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: we are different.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

We should celebrate our similiarties and differences. The alternative is to pretend we are the same for the sake of appeasing feminists. I do not like the latter and the former sounds appealing. You fit somewhere in between the two, I believe.

I am all for the former. I do however think we should celebrate real difference, not artificial ones. And we should not use them to disadvantage individuals.


Originally posted by dadudemon
That's probably because I do not find feminine males attractive because:

1. I'm not gay.

2. It's odd to pretend there is a mechanism other than my biology that makes me attracted to feminine traits.

3. I do not like submissive or subseviant females. I like intelligent, nice, and social females. (Odd that those are the same traits I like in male friends, huh?)

4. We still have unequal wages but where I work, I honestly believe the wages are in the opposite direction: females get paid more, on average, than males.

You seem to think that I am attacking you. I don't think you are sexist, and I have no problem with you having preferences to certain females. You are personalizing an issue that is about a state of society. Do you think you are like the general population? Because I believe you are smarter than most people, you are an exception, not the norm.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Girly girl means this:

"soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc."

So why do you find "girly girls" or men that are like "girly girls" intolerable when working outside? Non of the traits you gave there are a good reason for that, so there must be other traits, ones not mentioned, that makes "girly girls" intolerable in these circumstances.




Originally posted by dadudemon

No. As a state of being. As a powerful, educated, in-charge woman that is looked up to while being sexy.

Stop twisting my words.

I am not, you are basing everything on yourself. I have no desire to discuss you. I am talking about the view and understanding most people have. Like I said, most people few females, and these feminine traits not as something to aspire to, but something to possess. And the problem is not what people like or dislike, it's that society requires (still to a certain degree) boys and girls to fit these stereotypes.


Originally posted by dadudemon
I have never known anyone to describe it as such in backwards, redneck, sexist, country like Oklahoma. They think it refers to a grumpy female dog, as well.

Okay, I don't have any stats on that, lets just say I encountered many people who do, and you haven't. Can we agree though, that what I said does exist, at least to some degree, even if you think not nearly as prevalent as I believe.


Originally posted by dadudemon
And, Kittens? Please. You can do better at libel than that.

I didn't mean to "libel" you. I am sorry if you think that was my intention. I was referring to most people not thinking about cats when they call someone a pussy.


Originally posted by dadudemon
We need genetic homogeneity before your pipe-dreams can be realized. No genders. No race. No variance in appearances. We are all the same.

I disagree, the thing I said there is actually a tiny thing that we can surely do.

I think you are misinterpreting my standpoint a bit, it seems to me like you are arguing with a straw man version of militant feminism that I don't think I supported in my posts.

Oh good god. Where do I even start on this cluster****.



Um, no. No one has ever claimed to be the same. The whole point of the feminist movement is that women are equal to men, and as such deserve the same freedom of choice and rights that men enjoy without even thinking about it. Same =/= equal.



The two are not mutually exclusive. At all.



Stop acting like you know anything about feminism and sexism when you spout the crap you do. Or at least acknowledge the fact that most of what you say and believe is less biological and more due to societal pressures.



Uh-huh...sure. No, people rarely ever use "*****" that way. And even if they were, how do you not see the problems in using a term that refers to females as an insult?



Are you joking? Really? No, people do not use that word to refer to a cat. It's used as an insult because it's a crude slang term for a part of a woman's anatomy and men being seen as anything less than completely masculine is, in this society, a horrible thing.

How many more sexist insults do you think you can defend?



Except no one wants this. People are not the same. Only complete idiots want something like this. No, what is wanted here is for people to recognize that despite of differences between everyone, everyone is equal and deserving of the same rights and freedoms.

Let's see how much more mansplaining we can get going on here

Sexism is too much a generalisation, every individual is different and likes to be treated a certian way.

Thought this was funny and somewhat on point:



http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/evolution-rape-ovulation-and-how-to-get.html

I had to take a sexual harrassment class at my job. Basically what they told us for 2 hours was that if you are a woman you can say or do just about anything you want. If you are a man you can be fired, sued, and possibly even arrested, for saying anything that offends a woman.

Reading through some of this I find it ironic how I can state my terms, get angry and get pissed off only to get attacked back. I find though, if I resort to crying that I am most likely to get my way. I find that pretty sad. People trying to make me remember who I am and how I should act???

And that pisses me off because I'm not a crying little person. lol

Not touching this with a ten foot poll.

Don't feel like kicking the female beehive today, amirite. haermm

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Reading through some of this I find it ironic how I can state my terms, get angry and get pissed off only to get attacked back. I find though, if I resort to crying that I am most likely to get my way. I find that pretty sad. People trying to make me remember who I am and how I should act???

And that pisses me off because I'm not a crying little person. lol

You'd have no problem turning on the eye-faucet should you get pulled over in an attempt to weasel out of a traffic-ticket.

By the by, is it just me or is the title to this messed up?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: we are different.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

neuroplasticity and gendered play ftw

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
By the by, is it just me or is the title to this messed up?

very much so, I was just wondering that myself

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
By the by, is it just me or is the title to this messed up?

It's DDM speak.

I think it is overated and going way too overboard with stuff.

Originally posted by Robtard
You'd have no problem turning on the eye-faucet should you get pulled over in an attempt to weasel out of a traffic-ticket. Nope, not in this economy.

The police here are hardened, hardened....heartless bastards.
Dis B Detroit. (suburbsia)

The ones around here are so bored that they give tickets out for very stupid reasons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Girly girl means this:

"soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc."

The problem I see is that one of the traits in etc is: "mindless subservience to men."

I have never in my life met a man who actually thinks that about a woman, though. This isn't the 1950's.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have never in my life met a man who actually thinks that about a woman, though. This isn't the 1950's.

Is an aggressive CEO entirely "girly" if she meets the physical requirements for being traditionally feminine? A boxer that just decked you? A police sergeant?

You won't find a lot of men that will say "all women should be girly" but that isn't the question here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is an aggressive CEO entirely "girly" if she meets the physical requirements for being traditionally feminine?

You won't find a lot of men that will say "all women should be girly" but that isn't the question here.

What does any of this have to do with what I said? You stated that one of the commonly accepted traits associated with being a woman, is being mindlessly subservient to men. My point was that, based upon my own admittedly limited observations and experience, not enough men, in this day and age, actually think that, in order for it to be considered a "generally accepted" aspect of the female persona.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with what I said? You stated that one of the commonly accepted traits associated with being a woman, is being mindlessly subservient to men. My point was that, based upon my own admittedly limited observations and experience, not enough men, in this day and age, actually think that, in order for it to be considered a widely accepted enough fact to be apart of the "typical female" trait.

Being in a positions of power (ie not subservient) voids any claim to being "girly" because part of what it implies is that one is not a leader. It's built into the English language, even if people don't consciously think that women are/should be in a servant position.

I don't think the modern day definition of "girly" includes "can not lead", or "is not aggressive".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with what I said? You stated that one of the commonly accepted traits associated with being a woman, is being mindlessly subservient to men. My point was that, based upon my own admittedly limited observations and experience, not enough men, in this day and age, actually think that, in order for it to be considered a "generally accepted" aspect of the female persona.

its the implicit way society makes us assume different things about women and men, not necessarily in explicit beliefs.

Sure, most men wont say that a woman has less authority than a man, but when tested, they certainly behave in that way. Most women will as well.

You think that the average man is likely to stand up to a woman on the grounds that she's a woman, at least subconciously?

a man will rank a woman as being less powerful or will respect a woman's position of authority less than that of a man. So will a woman, for that matter.

mm. I'd agree with that, to an extent. I don't think that holds true for all situations though.

well, no, nothing does. but it's like, a male soldier or cop, you would (or at least are statistically likely) to regard with more deference than a female, because we have cultural expectations of what it means to be male/female/cop/soldier

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
By the by, is it just me or is the title to this messed up?

It is not, I assume he initially wanted to call the thread "How far should be too far" but then decided to call it "How far is too far" and the "should" stayed. Or the other way around, though less likely, perhaps.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
mm. I'd agree with that, to an extent. I don't think that holds true for all situations though.

It doesn't have to hold for everyone for it to be common enough to be problematic.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Girly girl means this:

"soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc."

I don't think so...

I thought "girly girl" was used to describe girls who like "girly" things or behave in a "girly" way.
Liking the colour pink, dresses, make-up.. Likes to gossip or is "bitchy", is weak, doesn't like to get dirty, likes shopping..
Stereotypical "girl" things.

I mean someone who had the traits you described could still be a "tomboy". It's not like people choose whether or not to have curves, smooth hands and full lips mmm

Originally posted by inimalist
well, no, nothing does. but it's like, a male soldier or cop, you would (or at least are statistically likely) to regard with more deference than a female, because we have cultural expectations of what it means to be male/female/cop/soldier Yah, and that's what I'm referring to when I say it depends on the situation. I think it depends on how "male-centric" or "female-centric" the environment is.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yah, and that's what I'm referring to when I say it depends on the situation. I think it depends on how "male-centric" or "female-centric" the environment is.

ya, exactly, and it works the other way too. iirc we tend to see female teachers as more "suitable" for the role than males

the thing is, the roles we see males as being better at are those that hold real power in society. We see bosses, and politicians and other power brokers as inherently positions of "maleness", whereas female jobs tend to be those of a domestic nature.

Look, I get that women can find their own expression through those roles, or can gain personal value through the authority that gain from the domains we ascribe to them, but for those who desire more than those roles, or especially in terms of how we set girls up to want different things than men, society in general certainly doesn't see them as being "equal" in terms of "powerful roles"

tangentially on topic.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/hard-core/8327/

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, exactly, and it works the other way too. iirc we tend to see female teachers as more "suitable" for the role than males

the thing is, the roles we see males as being better at are those that hold real power in society. We see bosses, and politicians and other power brokers as inherently positions of "maleness", whereas female jobs tend to be those of a domestic nature.

Look, I get that women can find their own expression through those roles, or can gain personal value through the authority that gain from the domains we ascribe to them, but for those who desire more than those roles, or especially in terms of how we set girls up to want different things than men, society in general certainly doesn't see them as being "equal" in terms of "powerful roles"

I agree with you on all of that. My issue with feminism has to do with what I see is the more "radical" form of it. Like, an example of radical feminism, imo, is being offended by a statement like "you fight like a woman", or "you cry like a woman". People see those as insults to women, I think that type of thinking is unnecessarily empathetic.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I agree with you on all of that. My issue with feminism has to do with what I see is the more "radical" form of it. Like, an example of radical feminism, imo, is being offended by a statement like "you fight like a woman", or "you cry like a woman". People see those as insults to women, I think that type of thinking is unnecessarily empathetic.

It is however an insult to women. Perhaps not intended, and perhaps not particularly harmful, but surely something one could avoid, no?

In fact, the power the insult has comes from the lower regard for women and stereotypes associated with them. It's stupid, too, there's a lot of men who can't fight for shit, and there's women who could whoop everyone here's asses (as dadudemon pointed out about 3 years ago)

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is however an insult to women. Perhaps not intended, and perhaps not particularly harmful, but surely something one could avoid, no?

Not really, imo, because anything can be an insult to anyone. I don't see a statement like "You fight like a woman", as an insult to women, so much as a type of social commentary on how women typically are. Women are generally physically weaker, more fragile, have less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that a woman is generally not as affective at fighting as a man would be. Ergo, if I'm fighting with someone and they say "you fight like a woman", it's more of an insult to me, really, because what he's saying is that the way that I'm displaying qualities that are commonly shown by women (that quality being ineffective in a fight)



I would argue that if you took a man who has no idea how to fight, and you take a woman who has no idea how to fight, the man will win the majority of the time.

Are you offended by the fact that the large majority of the time, regardless of who starts the fight, if the police are called in for a domestic dispute, it is the man who they will arrest?

I think we should strive for gender neutrality in all things. Leave no stone unturned if there's a societal divide we can root out.

Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal. There are some things that men have an inherent advantage in due to physical or chemical differences, and vice versa for women.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Are you offended by the fact that the large majority of the time, regardless of who starts the fight, if the police are called in for a domestic dispute, it is the man who they will arrest?

Yes, that's very offensive.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal. There are some things that men have an inherent advantage in due to physical or chemical differences, and vice versa for women.
Sure, but that's no excuse for the vast majority of sexist divisions that exist now. There are lots of things we attribute to biology that are also highly social; for instance the idea that women desire deeper emotional connections in sex than men. There may be some research supporting this, but it is a far greater divide in the US than in many other countries which makes me think that this is mainly a cultural effect.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure, but that's no excuse for the vast majority of sexist divisions that exist now. There are lots of things we attribute to biology that are also highly social; for instance the idea that women desire deeper emotional connections in sex than men. There may be some research supporting this, but it is a far greater divide in the US than in many other countries which makes me think that this is mainly a cultural effect. Well, Psychology is tricky like that, that's why when talking to Bardock I refrained from getting into the psychological aspect of things, physical differences are easier to quantify. Psychological/sociological studies have too many variables.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, that's very offensive.

Offensive to you, or to women?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, Psychology is tricky like that, that's why when talking to Bardock I refrained from getting into the psychological aspect of things, physical differences are easier to quantify. Psychological/sociological studies have too many variables.
Psychological/sociological differences are what defines sexism. You can't do much about biological differences, all feminist movements are directed at fixing the sociological ones.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Offensive to you, or to women?

To men. To equality. To humanity.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Psychological/sociological differences are what defines sexism. You can't do much about biological differences, all feminist movements are directed at fixing the sociological ones. But feminists complain about the biological differences. Specifically, it's the stating that there is a biological difference that is the problem.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.



Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
To men. To equality. To humanity. http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/Rodzilla109/not-sure-if-serious.jpg

edit

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?


Then nothing. It's about individuals. Studying the average differences is interesting for scientific pursuit, basing laws on it though is wrong. Again, individuals are what's important.

Say what if it came out (as some claim) that blacks are less intelligent than whites. What then?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Offensive to you, or to women?

I'd say it's offensive to everybody but more serious for men.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then nothing. It's about individuals. Studying the average differences is interesting for scientific pursuit, basing laws on it though is wrong. Again, individuals are what's important.

Say what if it came out (as some claim) that blacks are less intelligent than whites. What then? If it was proven that black people are more dumb than white people, I wouldn't be insulted, if a hiring manager was more willing to give a white person a chance on a job offer than me. If I wasn't an idiot, I would go out of my way to make it obvious that that stereotype doesn't apply to me.

Similarly, in Oakland, gang members are more likely to kill other gang members then non-gang members. Therefore, I can understand why police tend to scrutinize gang members more than non-gang members. If I don't want to be harassed by police, I won't engage myself gang member type activities.


You're talking about stereotypes, basically. Is stereotyping wrong? I.. guess. you know. whatever. It's something that everyone engages in, regardless of how open minded or progressive or whatever they think they are.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
But feminists complain about the biological differences. Specifically, it's the stating that there is a biological difference that is the problem.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.
I don't know what feminists literally deny their are biological differences between men and women. One has a penis and one has a vagina. There are biological differences and I think you are basing this more on your caricature of a feminist than any actual feminist theory.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?
That's why you need to prove something before you base your laws and society off of it. We should seek to remove all socially derived gender differences; if it turns out that something is biological, then we can't remove it. This isn't that hard. We know that much of the poor test scores among blacks compared to whites is a result of socio-economic factors, is it really unthinkable to you that many male-female divisions might likewise be so?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
But feminists complain about the biological differences. Specifically, it's the stating that there is a biological difference that is the problem.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.

who though? this seems like a real straw man argument...

even radical feminists wouldn't suggest that women are, just naturally, as strong as men

also, this (I can name a couple others) is one of the only things that is really different, on a biological level, between men and women, and is probably the most significant. Even then, in practice it makes little difference. Female firefighters and constructions workers are still able to do their jobs effectively, and while there might be issues with female cops drawing their guns too early, for the majority of the time, they are just as capable as men at being cops and soldiers.

The differences that do exist certainly don't extend into the domains of real power, so the fact that women are held in a lower regard in these instances has nothing to do with biology.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't know what feminists literally deny their are biological differences between men and women. One has a penis and one has a vagina. There are biological differences and I think you are basing this more on your caricature of a feminist than any actual feminist theory.

I guess. -shrug-




I just said this.

Could you summarize my argument in your own words, if I asked you to? I'm kind of curious to see what you guys think I am actually saying.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could you summarize my argument in your own words, if I asked you to? I'm kind of curious to see what you guys think I am actually saying.

on that point in particular, it seems like you were saying feminists (or some of them) want to deny, or take issue with, natural biological differences between men and women. I hadn't heard this before, and it sounds suspiscious.

I only posted anything else to sort of back up stuff I had said that I believe you agreed with...(?)

Fair enough. That's not exactly what I was trying to say, but, I could definitely see how you were led to that conclusion. my fault

fair enough man, totally not trying to troll or anything

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/Axcel3/340x-3.gif

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for the former. I do however think we should celebrate real difference, not artificial ones. And we should not use them to disadvantage individuals.

If you do that, though, it is sexist. We cannot celebrate differences, in a general sense.

We can celebrate our individual differences, however, and avoid the sexist portion of the discussion.

IE:

Sexist way: Women have better skin than men.

Good way: Wow, Sarah, you have better skin than mine.



The former is probably true, in a general sense, but it could be sexist.


Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to think that I am attacking you. I don't think you are sexist, and I have no problem with you having preferences to certain females. You are personalizing an issue that is about a state of society. Do you think you are like the general population? Because I believe you are smarter than most people, you are an exception, not the norm.

You specifically said:

"What you are saying is what I am talking about, you are conditioned to dislike the traits on males but like them on females."

While I do not think that was some sort of rage attack on your part, it was specifically directed at me. i did not personalize that. I understand that you are trying to make a point about sexism, in general, as well.

And, thanks: I think you're really smart people, as well.



Originally posted by Bardock42
So why do you find "girly girls" or men that are like "girly girls" intolerable when working outside? Non of the traits you gave there are a good reason for that, so there must be other traits, ones not mentioned, that makes "girly girls" intolerable in these circumstances.

That's easy: those will little muscle mass, high estrogen content, and lots of curves, do not have as much endurance and lifting capacity as others. It makes a 2 man job become a 3 or 4 man job. And, we can pretend that hormones play no part in emotions, but that doesn't explain why idiot body-builders becoming depressed and start crying all over the place like children when all of that test. starts aromatizing into estrogen. Obviously, our biology can affect our mood. This is not to say that women are whiners and complainers while working outside: tens of thousands of years beg to differ. I'm just saying that there is a general difference and it's easier to work with those humans that have more masculine traits: lots of test, muscle, size, endurance, aggression. There are several females that go to the gym with me that I would prefer to build a house with over ANY of my male coworkers, if that's an indication of where I'm coming from.



Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not, you are basing everything on yourself. I have no desire to discuss you. I am talking about the view and understanding most people have. Like I said, most people few females, and these feminine traits not as something to aspire to, but something to possess. And the problem is not what people like or dislike, it's that society requires (still to a certain degree) boys and girls to fit these stereotypes.

I kind of disagree that you had no desire to discuss me when your comments directly mention things I've state. However, if that's the case, we'll drop and I'll ignore when you mention me, specifically, for the sake of not pissing you off.

I agree that that those are traits that they aspire to posses. Anthropological evidence shows that large breasts have been a sign of fertility for a LOOOOONG time: well before modern societies were built. That should indicate that we have been "sexist" long before we called it sexism or even knew what that was. If I were to guess, sexism existed before humans.

Should we work to overcome what evolution has created? Absolutely! Because of our big brains, we should definitely rise above primitive organization. We also can't blame being "apes" on our sexism, as well.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I don't have any stats on that, lets just say I encountered many people who do, and you haven't. Can we agree though, that what I said does exist, at least to some degree, even if you think not nearly as prevalent as I believe.

Nor do I. Growing up, we used to call each other "female dog" to get away with calling each other "b*tch."

These days, I great my male pals with "SUP B*TCH!"

However, I would agree that if someone says, "you're my b*tch", that that context is sexist. Is that the context you were referring to? If so, I apologize: you were right.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't mean to "libel" you. I am sorry if you think that was my intention. I was referring to most people not thinking about cats when they call someone a pussy.

I never said kitten, nor did I mean it. In fact, I'd say that kittens are bolder than their adult counterparts. No worries.

I was thinking that, when they refer to people as p*ssy, they are thinking about the traits of it's origins: p*ssy-cat. Definitely NOT thinking about vaginas. It would make me "lol" if that's what people were referring to.



Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, the thing I said there is actually a tiny thing that we can surely do.

I do to: that's a very stupid idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are misinterpreting my standpoint a bit, it seems to me like you are arguing with a straw man version of militant feminism that I don't think I supported in my posts.

I am not. I'm commenting on the direction that some people are trying to take things with the feminist movement...with a Southpark reference. (The Turkish people from the future.)

I don't think you are a militant feminist. I don't even think I said that. I think, though, that you are looking for things that are sometimes not there, as is Peach. However, there is a crap-load of sexism. Man on woman, man on man, woman on man, and woman on woman. All those different types need to be toned down a bit. People need to stop being so shallow.

If that happens, then things like "The Bachelor" can go away.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Thought this was funny and somewhat on point:



http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/evolution-rape-ovulation-and-how-to-get.html

lol. Awesome. However, I see the opposite occuring: they use the research to prove that they are the same. I have seen the "gay-men" lumped together with "straight-women" though.

DDM, nobody uses the words ***** and pussy as insults in reference to the animals... I can't believe you're even trying to argue that. It should be plain obvious using these words in conversation that they're both references to supposed female behavior ("bitchy"/whiny for the first and timid/weak for the second).

I'm interested in these supposed big genetic differences in male/female brains... inimalist says there are almost no differences and i'm usually inclined to take his word on these issues.

Originally posted by King Kandy
DDM, nobody uses the words ***** and pussy as insults in reference to the animals... I can't believe you're even trying to argue that. It should be plain obvious using these words in conversation that they're both references to supposed female behavior ("bitchy"/whiny for the first and timid/weak for the second).

I disagree. But I've already outlined why.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm interested in these supposed big genetic differences in male/female brains... inimalist says there are almost no differences and i'm usually inclined to take his word on these issues.

K. I've already posted on it, however. And why would I disagree when the very article I posted talks about the "software" being the difference...meaning, neuroplasticity could alter what we measure in brain activity (which inimalist and I have discussed before, about 2 and half years ago.)

Also: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web1/a1pennington.html

Also, you can look up the biological differences between males and females.

Androgoen receptors and their rate of type occurance.

Hormone levels.

Genetics.

Bone density.

Muscle density.

Etc.

Sexual asymmetry is not my original idea, btw.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's DDM speak.

It is.

It should read: "Sexism: How Far is Too Far?

It used to say: "Sexism: How Far Should We Go?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem I see is that one of the traits in etc is: "mindless subservience to men."

YOU SEXIST!

You mean this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

This was your only source posted in this thread (you may have posted more in other threads?) and it doesn't provide evidence for any of the actual common views on how men and women differ... just that there are brain differences of unknown effect on personality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You mean this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

This was your only source posted in this thread (you may have posted more in other threads?) and it doesn't provide evidence for any of the actual common views on how men and women differ... just that there are brain differences of unknown effect on personality.

Reread my post because I edited it.


Also, please quote me where I said that the brains are exactly the same. Additionally, quote me where I said the brains are always different (for gender, alone). If you want me to make an argument for something I have not supported, I can do so, but you must pay me.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't think the modern day definition of "girly" includes "can not lead", or "is not aggressive".

Ditto. People thinks those are inclusive traits, but they are not. In fact, these days, in politics at least, women have to be womanly to get elected. You have to be "pretty."

Same with men: you have to be "handsome."

So, wait...is it POSSIBLE that people vote for people that are attractive? Yup. In fact, I've posted on that, too...cited a source and everything.


Originally posted by Bardock42
It is not, I assume he initially wanted to call the thread "How far should be too far" but then decided to call it "How far is too far" and the "should" stayed. Or the other way around, though less likely, perhaps.

Just saw this. Bravo: I hope my extra "man" left in a previous post doesn't get used against me, as well. lol

what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)

Originally posted by Sancty
I don't think so...

I thought "girly girl" was used to describe girls who like "girly" things or behave in a "girly" way.
Liking the colour pink, dresses, make-up.. Likes to gossip or is "bitchy", is weak, doesn't like to get dirty, likes shopping..
Stereotypical "girl" things.

I mean someone who had the traits you described could still be a "tomboy". It's not like people choose whether or not to have curves, smooth hands and full lips mmm

It's my own personal definition which counts the aboslute most when discussing what I think that means to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact, the power the insult has comes from the lower regard for women and stereotypes associated with them. It's stupid, too, there's a lot of men who can't fight for shit, and there's women who could whoop everyone here's asses (as dadudemon pointed out about 3 years ago)

Indeed.

But let's try replace those insults with something else:

"You cry like a body-builderin coming off a cycle."

It just...doesn't...have sting. lol

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really, imo, because anything can be an insult to anyone. I don't see a statement like "You fight like a woman", as an insult to women, so much as a type of social commentary on how women typically are. Women are generally physically weaker, more fragile, have less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that a woman is generally not as affective at fighting as a man would be. Ergo, if I'm fighting with someone and they say "you fight like a woman", it's more of an insult to me, really, because what he's saying is that the way that I'm displaying qualities that are commonly shown by women (that quality being ineffective in a fight)

I agree.

You could, however, change your insult to:

"You fight like a person that generally physically weaker, more fragile, has less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that you are not as affective at fighting as a person with better fighting traits, would be."

It just doesn't roll of the tongue, you know?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think we should strive for gender neutrality in all things. Leave no stone unturned if there's a societal divide we can root out.

But that would make sexual attraction completely unphysical and completely based on personality.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal.

Yup: they should get vasectomies, if they want them. EQUALITY!

Originally posted by inimalist
what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)
Right, that's what I was thinking as well. That's why I was specifically asking if there were any brain differences directly traceable to genetic differences.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. I've already posted on it, however. And why would I disagree when the very article I posted talks about the "software" being the difference...meaning, neuroplasticity could alter what we measure in brain activity (which inimalist and I have discussed before, about 2 and half years ago.)

Also: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web1/a1pennington.html

Also, you can look up the biological differences between males and females.

Androgoen receptors and their rate of type occurance.

Hormone levels.

Genetics.

Bone density.

Muscle density.

Etc.

Sexual asymmetry is not my original idea, btw.
I know there are obvious differences in biology (like I said earlier, it can be so obvious as 'one has a penis'). That's not what i'm asking. I asked specifically, are there brain differences, and are these brain differences directly linked to genetics? Like inimalist said, brain development to adulthood is a result of more than base biological differences.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Right, that's what I was thinking as well. That's why I was specifically asking if there were any brain differences directly traceable to genetic differences.

the closest thing I can think of would be something like language, which is lateralized to the left (mainly, though...) in men, but more distributed over both hemispheres in women.

Although there are these differences, after about age 8-10, there are no behavioural differences in language abilities between men and women.

There are probably some differences, however the idea that these differences are going to conform to the expectations our culture has about gender roles is silly, and imho, the differences that might exist will be more like what is found with language. While there may be some different wiring, behaviourly, we will be quite the same.

Originally posted by inimalist
what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)

Glad we agree. But my point was "we are different." I did not seek to ignorantly illustrate the reasons (because I would be ignorant of the reasons), just to point out that we are different.

Can you prove that the neurological differences are solely environmental? Or are they partly biological?


Originally posted by King Kandy
I know there are obvious differences in biology (like I said earlier, it can be so obvious as 'one has a penis'). That's not what i'm asking. I asked specifically, are there brain differences, and are these brain differences directly linked to genetics? Like inimalist said, brain development to adulthood is a result of more than base biological differences.

I cannot support an argument I did not make. I honestly do not know if it is purely environmental, at this point. I would like to know that, myself. Logic says it would be a combination but, as I have pointed out before, plasticity would take a crap on those results.

huh, did not see that coming...

Of course, due to society there are many differences in how men and women act and are treated. Personally, I think we should pursue cultural change to try and eliminate these differences to as large an extent as possible.

Originally posted by inimalist
the closest thing I can think of would be something like language, which is lateralized to the left (mainly, though...) in men, but more distributed over both hemispheres in women.

Although there are these differences, after about age 8-10, there are no behavioural differences in language abilities between men and women.

There are probably some differences, however the idea that these differences are going to conform to the expectations our culture has about gender roles is silly, and imho, the differences that might exist will be more like what is found with language. While there may be some different wiring, behaviourly, we will be quite the same.
Right, that's what i'd expect as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Talk about sexism, here. What? Women are things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad we agree. But my point was "we are different."

No, the clear implication of your point was far more than that- it was that we are different in ways that cannot be helped and that this should be celebrated. If you are now admitting the possibility that these differences are not hard wired that changes everything as it means those differences can be changed and your whole approach of "fact: we are different" becomes irrelevant due to the simple retort of "we don't have to be."

And from there it can be said that the environmental differences may be being foisted upon women by a male dominated society, this being the root of such sexism. And therefore it is that sexism you would be trying to celebrate. This takes us back to bardock's original point that you are arbitrarily selecting traits and saying they are positive traits on women and negative ones on males. If there is no hard-wired justification for that, this is a. ignorant and b. outright sexism. It then becomes sinister when you consider the possibility that the male-dominated society is instilling these traits that they would see as negative on each other (as men) onto women and thinking that on women, these otherwise negative traits are good things- because the only reason for that, lacking any actual underlying biological justification, is that they enjoy women having negative traits.

(This may well also undermine your earlier idea that it is odd to say that there is something other than biology making you attracted to what we call feminine traits. It can be attacked on two ends- first, that what you find attractive might be more to do with culture than biology, and secondly, as mentioned, that those traits may also be more to do with culture than biology).

Of course, I'll add my voice to those who have only contempt for your attempts to describe those insults as referring to animals. That poisoned the small shreds of credibility your argument still had. Your view that submissiveness is incompatible with intelligence is poor as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, the clear implication of your point was far more than that- it was that we are different in ways that cannot be helped and that this should be celebrated. If you are now admitting the possibility that these differences are not hard wired that changes everything as it means those differences can be changed and your whole approach of "fact: we are different" becomes irrelevant due to the simple retort of "we don't have to be."

And from there it can be said that the environmental differences may be being foisted upon women by a male dominated society, this being the root of such sexism. And therefore it is that sexism you would be trying to celebrate. This takes us back to bardock's original point that you are arbitrarily selecting traits and saying they are positive traits on women and negative ones on males. If there is no hard-wired justification for that, this is a. ignorant and b. outright sexism. It then becomes sinister when you consider the possibility that the male-dominated society is instilling these traits that they would see as negative on each other (as men) onto women and thinking that on women, these otherwise negative traits are good things- because the only reason for that, lacking any actual underlying biological justification, is that they enjoy women having negative traits.

(This may well also undermine your earlier idea that it is odd to say that there is something other than biology making you attracted to what we call feminine traits. It can be attacked on two ends- first, that what you find attractive might be more to do with culture than biology, and secondly, as mentioned, that those traits may also be more to do with culture than biology).

Of course, I'll add my voice to those who have only contempt for your attempts to describe those insults as referring to animals. That poisoned the small shreds of credibility your argument still had. Your view that submissiveness is incompatible with intelligence is poor as well.

You cannot decide what the intentions of my points were or were not.

We are different biologically. Our brains are even different.

However, this is as far as I can take it. I've direclty indicated that I do not know if the evironment is completely or partly responsible for that neurological difference.

Considering I've argue for the plasticity of the human brain, before, your reply is even further off target.

The rest of your points have been addressed, already.

Edit - read the middle of your post. You ask if there is no hard-wired mechanism for those biological traits as completey environmentally influenced. There is. Else I wouldn't have spoken on that. Your a) and b) options do not apply.

You appear to be unnecessarily hostile, as well. I could say that you are "obviously ignorant of sexology and human biology", but that would be rude and unnecessary on my part. All that I ask is that you tone down the hostility a bit. I'm okay with arguing about this stuff as much as you want but I won't discuss things with you if you cannot refrain for insults.

I'm old school and I think men should protect their woman rather than let their woman protect them. That could be considered sexist but I don't really care. I've never seen or heard of a woman beating a man to death with her bare hands. If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds. I do feel that women deserve equal rights as men and should be as much respected as any man. I think it's unrealistic to act as though they're equals though because there are distinct physical/mental differences because of the different hormones.

If the ship is sinking I still feel women and children should be first to get off and if the captain is a woman let her go down with the ship, giving her the same respect you would give a male captain. I think all humans should be treated as equals considering the amount of respect that you show them. Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men. Diamonds and gravel aren't equals just because they're both rocks.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I've never seen or heard of a woman beating a man to death with her bare hands.

Bare hands haven't been the chosen method of killing people for twenty thousand years.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds.

I don't get this statement. Wouldn't you also stop twp men trying to kill each other or two women? And why bring up averages? (after all if your there watching you can see for yourself who's winning)

Originally posted by The MISTER
Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men.

Bull.

why? do you know any particularly beautiful men?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bare hands haven't been the chosen method of killing people for twenty thousand years.



I don't get this statement. Wouldn't you also stop twp men trying to kill each other or two women? And why bring up averages? (after all if your there watching you can see for yourself who's winning)



Bull.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cigarette-beating,0,7963479.story

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What? Women are things. I'll drink to that.

Originally posted by The MISTER
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cigarette-beating,0,7963479.story

So?

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/harvey-homicide-douglas-collins-shooting-domestic.html

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm old school and I think men should protect their woman rather than let their woman protect them. That could be considered sexist but I don't really care. I've never seen or heard of a woman beating a man to death with her bare hands. If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds. I do feel that women deserve equal rights as men and should be as much respected as any man. I think it's unrealistic to act as though they're equals though because there are distinct physical/mental differences because of the different hormones.

If the ship is sinking I still feel women and children should be first to get off and if the captain is a woman let her go down with the ship, giving her the same respect you would give a male captain. I think all humans should be treated as equals considering the amount of respect that you show them. Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men. Diamonds and gravel aren't equals just because they're both rocks. That was a nice comment. I think most women like a strong man. I, myself, have had a few passive men where I found myself defending them and in my eyes, that was not cool. It was like, "Let the women take the heat," cause I don't feel like it.

Originally posted by Peach
Um, no. No one has ever claimed to be the same. The whole point of the feminist movement is that women are equal to men, and as such deserve the same freedom of choice and rights that men enjoy without even thinking about it. Same =/= equal.


if women want equality then why isn't there an uproar with the majority of women about being apart of the draft.

why is getting framed for workplace sexual harrasement by a spiteful woman more likely to get that man in trouble even if he's innocent.

why is having sex a woman's choice only.

why does there have to be an automatic blanket respect for women just because, well, they're women.

why am i not considered a man if i don't give up my seat to a woman.

why can most women get away with domestic violence (as the assulter) in the justice system most of the time. why does a woman hit you with all her might, with an object, and say "go ahead, i dare you to hit me back! I'll call the police if you do!"

believe me. we live in a country with a highly protected femenine class where everything from the way the ipod looks to movies and tv commercials to tv shows that bash men all day on tv. men are jerks, men are idiots, they're pigs, they can't do the simplest of tasks at home without wifey, they're players, they're to be toyed with. you got movies where if it involves a love interest the point is not to get her mad, or one of a few things will happen: no sex, she'll be mad at you, or she'll hit you and the guy better smile and ok with all of that or he's not a man.

everybody loves raymond, you had the wife in one episode tell the kids to go hit their dad! and the audience laughed! now reverse the roles, the show would've been canceled that week and there would've been a congressional meeting on capitol hill about the "false" rise domestic violence against women on tv just because raymond jokingly implied it as his wife, really, did.

women complain about getting paid 80 cents to men's dollar but that's because we work all day everyday, through, rain, sleet, or snow, till were old and dead, as we're expected too, figuratively speaking. we come in even when were sick most of the time, we have no maternatity leave, no going home early to get the sick kid, no staying home if there's not a babysitter, not as emotional about business, more practical corporate high pressure decision makers, we're more agressive about money, determined, ambitious, go getters, for the most part. 98% of fortune 500 company ceo's are men.

now, i'm for equality. but it cannot be had both ways. that's where the problem arises with me. wanting both. you cannot want to be treated like both a man and a lady (with me, at least.) you gotta pick one. it's just with me, if i'm interested in you, and you want to be treated like a man, i'm good, there's the door. i have male friends already.

and hell, i'm not saying i want a slave but on the other hand why would i want a woman that has the traits of a man. that's just unappealing and annoying as all hell. a some women think guys like that. the tough, strong, gallant, you go girl, mouthy, attitudinal woman of today. news flash we don't. big time. it's a major, a huge turn off. i like a natural femenine women. i don't care what femenists think.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i like a natural femenine women. i don't care what femenists think.

if:

natural = determined by the expectations and demands of our society

feminists = any woman who doesn't want to have their role and value determined by society

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
if women want equality then why isn't there an uproar with the majority of women about being apart of the draft.

I'm against drafts. I am sure many feminists are, too.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why is getting framed for workplace sexual harrasement by a spiteful woman more likely to get that man in trouble even if he's innocent.

I'd like to see stats on that.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why is having sex a woman's choice only.

It is not. If it appears so it may be because men are more willing to have sex, so their choice is always "yes".

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why does there have to be an automatic blanket respect for women just because, well, they're women.

There doesn't have to be beyond the automatic blanket respect for humans.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why am i not considered a man if i don't give up my seat to a woman.

Because of backwards chivalry. Something many feminists I know are worried about just like you.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why can most women get away with domestic violence (as the assulter) in the justice system most of the time. why does a woman hit you with all her might, with an object, and say "go ahead, i dare you to hit me back! I'll call the police if you do!"

Because men tend to not report it as well as society expecting men to be "strong" and "tough". Something most feminists I know fight against as well.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
believe me. we live in a country with a highly protected femenine class where everything from the way the ipod looks to movies and tv commercials to tv shows that bash men all day on tv. men are jerks, men are idiots, they're pigs, they can't do the simplest of tasks at home without wifey, they're players, they're to be toyed with. you got movies where if it involves a love interest the point is not to get her mad, or one of a few things will happen: no sex, she'll be mad at you, or she'll hit you and the guy better smile and ok with all of that or he's not a man.

We live in countries with sexist divides, some in favour of women at the expense of men, most (or at least the most influental ones) in favour of men at the expense of women, neither of which should exist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
everybody loves raymond, you had the wife in one episode tell the kids to go hit their dad! and the audience laughed! now reverse the roles, the show would've been canceled that week and there would've been a congressional meeting on capitol hill about the "false" rise domestic violence against women on tv just because raymond jokingly implied it as his wife, really, did.

You make a good point. Fight this injustice with us. Become a feminist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
women complain about getting paid 80 cents to men's dollar but that's because we work all day everyday, through, rain, sleet, or snow, till were old and dead, as we're expected too, figuratively speaking. we come in even when were sick most of the time, we have no maternatity leave, no going home early to get the sick kid, no staying home if there's not a babysitter, not as emotional about business, more practical corporate high pressure decision makers, we're more agressive about money, determined, ambitious, go getters, for the most part.

Some of that is down to it, perhaps, but there is also problems women who do not do that face. And talking about expectations again, women are expected to take maternity leave when they have children, if a man does it it is looked down upon. Feminists lament that.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
98% of fortune 500 company ceo's are men.

Yeah, I am glad you agree that that's skewed, and a sign of unfair male advantages.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
now, i'm for equality. but it cannot be had both ways. that's where the problem arises with me. wanting both. you cannot want to be treated like both a man and a lady (with me, at least.) you gotta pick one. it's just with me, if i'm interested in you, and you want to be treated like a man, i'm good, there's the door. i have male friends already.

So with you, a girl only has the ability to be treated in a chauvinist way, or not be in your life? Why not just treat everyone as humans? Equally, since you pretend in your first sentence to be for equality (though you prove in the latter part that you actually are not at all).

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and hell, i'm not saying i want a slave but on the other hand why would i want a woman that has the traits of a man. that's just unappealing and annoying as all hell. a some women think guys like that. the tough, strong, gallant, you go girl, mouthy, attitudinal woman of today. news flash we don't. big time. it's a major, a huge turn off. i like a natural femenine women. i don't care what femenists think.

No one says that you have to like women who behave in "traditionally male ways", you are free to choose who you associate with and who you date (though it is rather telling that to you girl = sex object and nothing else), but this is about treatment equality. Pretty unrelated to what you are talking about there.

Originally posted by inimalist
if:

natural = determined by the expectations and demands of our society

feminists = any woman who doesn't want to have their role and value determined by society I think his point is that he doesn't care about feminists.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think his point is that he doesn't care about feminists.

Though, as evident by his post, down to a misconception of what feminism entails. i.e. the old "man-hating, likely lesbian, nagging woman", an idiotic stereotype, perhaps only eclipsed in misunderstanding by what the term anarchy faces.



To connect two discussions

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think his point is that he doesn't care about feminists.

well, sure, but by his definition, any woman who doesn't want to fall into the common steryotypes that he has is a feminist

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm against drafts. I am sure many feminists are, too.



I'd like to see stats on that.



It is not. If it appears so it may be because men are more willing to have sex, so their choice is always "yes".



There doesn't have to be beyond the automatic blanket respect for humans.



Because of backwards chivalry. Something many feminists I know are worried about just like you.



Because men tend to not report it as well as society expecting men to be "strong" and "tough". Something most feminists I know fight against as well.



We live in countries with sexist divides, some in favour of women at the expense of men, most (or at least the most influental ones) in favour of men at the expense of women, neither of which should exist.



You make a good point. Fight this injustice with us. Become a feminist.



Some of that is down to it, perhaps, but there is also problems women who do not do that face. And talking about expectations again, women are expected to take maternity leave when they have children, if a man does it it is looked down upon. Feminists lament that.


Yeah, I am glad you agree that that's skewed, and a sign of unfair male advantages.



So with you, a girl only has the ability to be treated in a chauvinist way, or not be in your life? Why not just treat everyone as humans? Equally, since you pretend in your first sentence to be for equality (though you prove in the latter part that you actually are not at all).



No one says that you have to like women who behave in "traditionally male ways", you are free to choose who you associate with and who you date (though it is rather telling that to you girl = sex object and nothing else), but this is about treatment equality. Pretty unrelated to what you are talking about there.

i responded to each of your retorts in order, just in case. i don't know how to divide quotes the way you did.



why would femenists be against the draft? don't they want equality? so they should be able to fight shoulder to shoulder with men on the front lines or face prosecution to the fullest extent if they don't.

and as far as workplace sexual harrasment goes, when you've done nothing, as a man, you're still guilty until proven guilty and that can cost alot for example, your job; reputation, the stigma of the mere existance of the accusation.

and women want sex just as men do. it's just they use it as a loss leader to fulfill self interests.

but it's known that "men have to respect women." it's a saying for christ's sake. imo, no one automatically deserves respect. respect is earned.

and i don't know what backwards chivalry is, never heard of it, but i know when i use to take public transportation, and i sat, and didn't give up my seat to a woman, you could cut the tension in the air with a butterknife. it was if i had leprocy with the up and down looks, the "my goodness" "my god" "you're supose to be a man" looks and reactions were just insane.

and what does men not reporting domestic violence to the police as often as women do have to do with women getting treated as victims were they were the agressor with police telling the man to leave, lick your wounds someplace else, and come back later while the agressor female gets on the spot medical attention for tension hyperactivity and tissues for her tears. how?

well in this case we live in a country with a sexist divide that socially favours women at the expense of men where women are right, even if they're wrong cause it's not about right or wrong it's about how they feel.

and how is the fact that a high percentages of men being ceo's skewed or unfair? surely those companies shouldn't hire women just because they're women? the most experienced and qualified should get the job. that's what wrong with the fighter fighter stations. "hire more women because they're women, forget about them not passing physical tests."

i treat humans as humans. it's just i specifically treat the boys like the boys and a lady like a lady. reverse the roles. i'd be weird. what's so inhuman about that. as long as they're treated as good as they treat me.

and i don't look at girls as sex objects but i am a traditional kinda guy. and femenists think i'm the devil or going to hell for being that way. well screw them.

ha, there's just a pitchfork in hades with my name on it and that's fine by me...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i responded to each of your retorts in order, just in case. i don't know how to divide quotes the way you did.




why would femenists be against the draft? don't they want equality? so they should be able to fight shoulder to shoulder with men on the front lines or face prosecution to the fullest extent if they don't.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
If there was no draft, it would be equal, men wouldn't be drafted, women wouldn't be drafted. Feminists have however fought for the right of women to fight on the front lines.


Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and as far as workplace sexual harrasment goes, when you've done nothing, as a man, you're still guilty until proven guilty and that can cost alot for example, your job; reputation, the stigma of the mere existance of the accusation.


Still waiting for proof, not a repetition of the point.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and women want sex just as men do. it's just they use it as a loss leader to fulfill self interests.


I don't think that term means what you think it means. But yeah, perhaps some women can and do use it to make men do things they want, however, how is that wrong or unequal? Men could potentially do the same, if women wanted sex so much with them.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
but it's known that "men have to respect women." it's a saying for christ's sake. imo, no one automatically deserves respect. respect is earned.


I know, feminists aren't for that, in fact is it an old, chauvinist, decidedly non-feminist saying. And fair enough, if no one automatically deserves respect in your opinion, there's no reason women should be exempt.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and i don't know what backwards chivalry is, never heard of it, but i know when i use to take public transportation, and i sat, and didn't give up my seat to a woman, you could cut the tension in the air with a butterknife. it was if i had leprocy with the up and down looks, the "my goodness" "my god" "you're supose to be a man" looks and reactions were just insane.


I agree, societies expectations for men are horrible too, but again, that's not feminisms fault, that is in fact the fault of a victorian mindset that has survived and that feminism has rebelled against from the very beginning.

Again, if you are outraged by that, do something about it, become a feminist, help fight social inequalities.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and what does men not reporting domestic violence to the police as often as women do have to do with women getting treated as victims were they were the agressor with police telling the man to leave, lick your wounds someplace else, and come back later while the agressor female gets on the spot medical attention for tension hyperactivity and tissues for her tears. how?


Well, again I'd like to see stats on how prevalent that is. But, also again, I agree that it is ****ed up, and so do feminists.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
well in this case we live in a country with a sexist divide that socially favours women at the expense of men where women are right, even if they're wrong cause it's not about right or wrong it's about how they feel.


Agreed, there is sexism that favours women, and there's sexism that favours men, it's not equal though. And we should eradicate both kinds of sexism. What do you suggest, calling it even? Cause that's hardly fair.


Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and how is the fact that a high percentages of men being ceo's skewed or unfair? surely those companies shouldn't hire women just because they're women? the most experienced and qualified should get the job. that's what wrong with the fighter fighter stations. "hire more women because they're women, forget about them not passing physical tests."


No, they shouldn't hire women for the sake of hiring women. But it seems like an immense indication that there is sexism in hiring policies. Unless you think that the top skilled 98% of the population are male, which I don't think is any scientific indication for.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i treat humans as humans. it's just i specifically treat the boys like the boys and a lady like a lady. reverse the roles. i'd be weird. what's so inhuman about that. as long as they're treated as good as they treat me.


But you treat women the way you are conditioned to view women, and men the way you are conditioned to view men, it's not a natural difference between the sexes that shapes your different behaviour, it's societies indoctrination.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
and i don't look at girls as sex objects but i am a traditional kinda guy. and femenists think i'm the devil or going to hell for being that way. well screw them.


I am a feminist, I don't think you are the devil or going to hell. I'd assume most feminists wouldn't either. I disagree with your view, and I believe you have not giving it rational thought, and rather go by what you have been taught, but I don't hate you for it.

This thread is flawed as many countries have significant and slightly different perceptions of issues. For example in the UK men have real problems seeing there children if the mother makes it hard after a divorce, this is not true in Italy. I have lost count of the stories I have heard about female domestic abuse "victims" for example who have driven their male partners to the point of exasperated fury and then tearfully run to the nearest police office when the inevitable explosion has happened. I personally know a man who has been stabbed three times by his partner. Hit with pieces of wood. Had various heavy objects hurled at him causing all kinds of injuries and who has been subjected to staggering emotional abuse for years. Taken to the point where he could no longer bare it, he left her. Only to have her follow him and attack his house and car. Furious, he called the police who were told by her he was abusing her and he was arrested despite the vast amount of evidence that she was a violent liar. Yet the media is utterly blind to this reality.

So many men, certainly among the young, now take the view that if the government and media have given women Cart Blanche to abuse their male partners, they may as well hit her back because there is no other avenue of redress open to them. So the stupidity of the point of view held by the media, much of academia and the politicians etc., has resulted in more women getting thumped and not less. There is a saying on the streets that aptly makes this point: "If you do not want to get bitten by the Lion don't poke it in the eye." In fact, we treat animals better than people -- especially working class people -- and we do this because we have a media fixated on its own idea of what is important to IT and not to the public. Along with a huge excess of middle class snobbery and egotistical delusions of superiority.

Meow.. Let's dress as cats!

lulz

Women are evil, wither this is due to society or biology is unknown. We get it. New thread topic plulz.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Women are evil, wither this is due to society or biology is unknown. We get it. New thread topic plulz.

Many are Witches you know.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm old school and I think men should protect their woman rather than let their woman protect them. That could be considered sexist but I don't really care.

If we were hunters and gatherers, it wouldn't be sexist: it would be essential. It would be similar to a Silver Back's responsabilities.

It's sexist in a modern world because things work much differently, now.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds.

That's a little barbaric of you.

Additionally, by your logic, a mismatch between 2 men should be stopped, as well.

On top of that, two men, both in the same exact cardivascular shape, same strength, same stature, and same weight, could still be on horribly mismatched grounds: one could be a professional fighter or special ops, and the other a recreational fitness guru. Should that mismatch be stopped, as well?

This is why that line of reasoning leads, inevitably, to being sexist. However, I think that a male has a social, moral, and spiritual obligation to protect his wife and children. A women also as the same responsibilities for her husband and children...but to a lesser extent, she shouldn't be expected to be the first one to beat down an attacker of her children unless she's better suited for the task than her husband. And here's where "to a lesser extent" comes into play: men are, on average, better suited to the task.

How do you decide that, though? Actually, my wife and I discussed such things, already. Any responsible parent should have several discussions about the safety of their children or family.



Now, back on topic: I am barbaric myself and I love to fight, so I have no room to speak, lol.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I do feel that women deserve equal rights as men and should be as much respected as any man. I think it's unrealistic to act as though they're equals though because there are distinct physical/mental differences because of the different hormones.

I wouldn't say that hormones are what makes the difference: really, it would the ratios of cell-site receptors in combination WITH the hormones that make some of the differences. However, the mental part: we can't be sure about.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think all humans should be treated as equals considering the amount of respect that you show them. Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men. Diamonds and gravel aren't equals just because they're both rocks.

I agree.

But, I'm a tad bit different than you are: if a women started hitting me for no damn reason other than she was pissed off at the world, I would not hold back because of the sexist notion that she's a woman and she can't be hit. I would do what's necessary to get her off of me including punching her right back.

Having sex with girls and then not calling them, but having sex with their friends is frowned upon.

Believe me.

Originally posted by Catfurry
This thread is flawed as many countries have significant and slightly different perceptions of issues. For example in the UK men have real problems seeing there children if the mother makes it hard after a divorce, this is not true in Italy. I have lost count of the stories I have heard about female domestic abuse "victims" for example who have driven their male partners to the point of exasperated fury and then tearfully run to the nearest police office when the inevitable explosion has happened. I personally know a man who has been stabbed three times by his partner. Hit with pieces of wood. Had various heavy objects hurled at him causing all kinds of injuries and who has been subjected to staggering emotional abuse for years. Taken to the point where he could no longer bare it, he left her. Only to have her follow him and attack his house and car. Furious, he called the police who were told by her he was abusing her and he was arrested despite the vast amount of evidence that she was a violent liar. Yet the media is utterly blind to this reality.

So many men, certainly among the young, now take the view that if the government and media have given women Cart Blanche to abuse their male partners, they may as well hit her back because there is no other avenue of redress open to them. So the stupidity of the point of view held by the media, much of academia and the politicians etc., has resulted in more women getting thumped and not less. There is a saying on the streets that aptly makes this point: "If you do not want to get bitten by the Lion don't poke it in the eye." In fact, we treat animals better than people -- especially working class people -- and we do this because we have a media fixated on its own idea of what is important to IT and not to the public. Along with a huge excess of middle class snobbery and egotistical delusions of superiority.

Meow.. Let's dress as cats!

why didnt he take the kids with him when he left bc he couldnt take it anymore? Sorry but I dont believe a two sided story...

Originally posted by alltoomany
why didnt he take the kids with him when he left bc he couldnt take it anymore? Sorry but I dont believe a two sided story... Because the woman won the court case probably?